Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (454415)	9/8/2003 4:20:48 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

U.S. Notes Decline; More Debt May Be Sold to Finance Terror War Sept. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Treasuries fell in London trading after U.S. President George W. Bush sought $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan in the next fiscal year, raising investor concern the government will sell more bonds to finance the spending. The planned outlay will add to a budget deficit that's already projected to reach $480 billion in the next fiscal year, after an estimated record $455 billion gap this year. The benchmark 4 1/4 percent Treasury due in August 2013 fell 11/32, or $3.44 per $1,000 face amount, to 98 27/32 at 8:19 a.m. in London, according to Van Der Moolen NV. Its yield rose 4 basis points to 4.39 percent. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point. ``The supply concern was bad already, and that was underpinning the overall bearish trend in the Treasury market,'' said Edward Lee, a fixed-income strategist at Standard Chartered Plc in Singapore. The sell-off is likely to continue and yields may rise to 4.5 percent by the end of the month, Lee said. Delaware Senator Joe Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Cable News Network after the speech that ``we have no choice'' but to fund Bush's request. To pay for it, Biden suggested postponing some of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that Congress enacted. Congress approved a supplemental request in April that included $62.4 billion for troops and supplies. Bush spoke in a televised address, his first formal speech on Iraq since May 1, when he declared major combat operations over. quote.bloomberg.com

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (454415)	9/8/2003 8:05:08 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

nytimes.com <<<To see what is really unfolding in Iraq, we need to place it in the long history of American overseas interventions. It is worth remembering, for example, that when American soldiers have occupied countries before, for example Japan and Germany, the story started out much the same: not enough food, not enough electricity, not enough law and order (and, in Germany, ragtag Nazi fighters). And if this history is part of what drove us into Iraq, what doctrine, if any, has determined when and where Americans are sent to fight? Before the United States sends troops to any future front -- Syria? North Korea? Iran? -- it is crucial to ask: What does the history of American intervention teach us to hope and to fear? And how might the United States devise a coherent strategy of engagement suited for the perils -- and possibilities -- of the 21st century? II. From the very beginning, the American republic has never shrunk from foreign wars. A recent Congressional study shows that there has scarcely been a year since its founding that American soldiers haven't been overseas ''from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli,'' chasing pirates, punishing bandits, pulling American citizens out of harm's way, intervening in civil wars, stopping massacres, overturning regimes deemed (fairly or not) unfriendly and exporting democracy. American foreign policy largely consists of doctrines about when and where to intervene in other people's countries. In 1823, James Monroe committed the United States -- militarily, if it came to that -- to keeping foreign colonial powers out of the entire Western Hemisphere. In 1906, Theodore Roosevelt added a corollary giving the United States the right to send in troops when any of its Latin American neighbors engaged in ''flagrant wrongdoing.'' Most Latin Americans, then and now, took that to mean that the United States would topple any government in the hemisphere that acted against American interests. Early in the last century, American troops went ashore to set up governments in Haiti and the Dominican Republic and chased Pancho Villa around Mexico. And this kind of intervention wasn't just confined to pushing around Latin Americans. Twelve thousand troops were sent to support the White armies fighting the Communists in the Russian Civil War that began in 1918. In the 1920's, during the civil war in China, there were 6,000 American soldiers ashore and a further 44 naval vessels in the China Sea protecting American interests. (Neither venture was much of a success. Both Russia and China eventually went Communist.) ......>>> tooo long to post ...goto website to read the rest